Muse GlimmervsQwen3.7-Max
Muse Glimmer | Qwen3.7-Max | |
|---|---|---|
| Specifications | ||
ParametersA rough measure of how big the model is. More parameters usually means more capable and more expensive to run, though it is a poor guide on its own — a smaller, newer model often beats a larger, older one. | 30B | — |
| API pricingUSD per 1M tokens · lower wins | ||
Input priceWhat you pay for everything you send the model — your question, plus any documents or earlier conversation you include with it. | — | $2.50 |
Output priceWhat you pay for the text the model writes back. It is normally the dearer half: producing an answer costs more than reading one. | — | $7.50 |
Cheapest inputLowest input rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. The cheapest endpoint may run a quantised build or a shorter context — see "Available from" on the model page. | $0.30DeepInfra | — |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | $1.10Phala | — |
| Benchmarks | ||
SWE-Bench ProAgentic coding — Can the AI fix real bugs in real software? It's handed actual problems from open-source projects and has to write code that genuinely solves them. Higher is better. | 51.2% | 60.6% |
SWE-Bench VerifiedCoding — Real coding tasks pulled from open-source projects — the AI has to find and fix actual bugs. A human-checked version of the original SWE-Bench. Higher is better. | 76% | 80.4% |
MCP AtlasMulti-step tool use — Can the AI chain together many tools and steps to complete one bigger task, rather than doing just a single thing? Higher is better. | 75.5% | 76.4% |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | 83.5% | 92.4% |
| BenchmarksPublished by one model only | ||
BullshitBench v2Nonsense detection — Given a confidently-worded but nonsensical prompt, does the AI spot that it makes no sense and push back — instead of playing along and inventing an answer? The score is how often it clearly called out the nonsense. Higher is better. | — | 72% |
LiveCodeBenchCompetitive coding — Coding problems published so recently the AI can't have seen them in training — a contamination-free test of raw programming skill. Higher is better. | — | 91.6% |
Terminal-Bench 2.1Agentic terminal coding — Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? Higher is better. | 51.7% | — |
Terminal-Bench 2.0Agentic terminal coding — Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? (Version 2.0 of the test.) Higher is better. | — | 69.7% |
Humanity's Last Exam · no toolsMultidisciplinary reasoning — Humanity's Last Exam — extremely hard expert questions across many subjects, written so you can't just look up the answer. “No tools” means the AI answers on its own. Higher is better. | 22% | — |
Humanity's Last Exam · with toolsMultidisciplinary reasoning — Humanity's Last Exam — extremely hard expert questions across many subjects. “With tools” means the AI is allowed to search the web or run code while answering. Higher is better. | — | 41.4% |
OSWorld-VerifiedAgentic computer use — Can the AI actually operate a computer — clicking, typing, and using real apps — to finish tasks on its own? Higher is better. | 65.9% | — |
GDPval-AA v2Knowledge work — economically valuable knowledge work (v2, re-based Elo) | 953 | — |
CharXiv ReasoningChart reasoning — Can the AI read and reason about complex charts and figures, not just text? Higher is better. | 78.8% | — |
MMMU-ProMultimodal reasoning — A tougher version of MMMU — college-level questions that mix images, diagrams, and text together. Higher is better. | 74% | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Meta | Qwen |
| Release date | Aug 10 2026 | May 20 2026 |
| Access | Open Weight | Proprietary |
Other comparisons
Muse GlimmervsClaude Fable 5.1Qwen3.7-MaxvsClaude Fable 5.1Muse GlimmervsGPT-6 AstraQwen3.7-MaxvsGPT-6 AstraMuse GlimmervsGemini 3.8 FlashQwen3.7-MaxvsGemini 3.8 FlashMuse GlimmervsGrok 4.6Qwen3.7-MaxvsGrok 4.6Muse GlimmervsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashQwen3.7-MaxvsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashMuse GlimmervsMistral Medium 3.5Qwen3.7-MaxvsMistral Medium 3.5
Frequently asked questions
Qwen3.7-Max leads Muse Glimmer on 4 of the 4 benchmarks they both report (SWE-Bench Pro, SWE-Bench Verified, MCP Atlas, GPQA Diamond). Only Qwen3.7-Max has a verified first-party API price: $2.50 per million input tokens and $7.50 per million output tokens. No pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for Muse Glimmer. Qwen3.7-Max shipped 82 days before Muse Glimmer, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Muse Glimmer is open weight, while Qwen3.7-Max is proprietary.
On SWE-Bench Pro, Qwen3.7-Max leads at 60.6% vs Muse Glimmer at 51.2%. On SWE-Bench Verified, Qwen3.7-Max leads at 80.4% vs Muse Glimmer at 76%. On MCP Atlas, Qwen3.7-Max leads at 76.4% vs Muse Glimmer at 75.5%. On GPQA Diamond, Qwen3.7-Max leads at 92.4% vs Muse Glimmer at 83.5%.